Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Edena_of_Neith" data-source="post: 4400280" data-attributes="member: 2020">Ah, no.  This is not an Editions War Thread.  Edition Wars Threads are not allowed on ENWorld, as per the Rules.  This thread has nothing to do with editions of D&D.  This thread is about the fundamental roots of D&D, and why I think D&D is having some trouble currently based on those fundamental roots.    Well, ok, I was not specific enough.  I was really describing a mentality behind Balance, not so much Balance per se.  All editions of D&D had Balance ... they had a Balance of Imbalances.  And they still do.  In my opinion, all roleplaying games have this Balance of Imbalances.  By 'Balance' I was specifically referring to efforts to suppress the imagination, to denounce the imagination.  You might ask:  why would I allude to such things?  Because I have seen this suppress take place, both in person and indirectly.  I cannot fathom why people feel threatened by the imagination of other people, yet there it is ... I've seen it happen, over and over and over.  So, they do what they can to convince the other player to suppress his or her imagination.  (I am not an expert on human nature.)  So, I am not saying that Balance destroys the game.  I'm saying efforts to suppress the imagination destroy the game.  And, for reasons I do not understand, some people feel threatened by imagination and try to suppress it, and I've seen example after exhausting example of this happen for myself.    Hey, each to their own.  I cannot disagree with you here!  I agree!  But it's a funny thing.  You know ... as in ... one player might prefer a D&D type roleplaying game, and one a White Wolf Vampire the Masquerade type of roleplaying game.  Each to their own.  One person might want, to use the cliche, a world where wizards Rule.  Another might want a game where fighters Rule.  Heh.  LOL.  What to do?  I said we need a stable set of rules, yet here I am saying everyone is different, and wants a different game.  Sorta like a lot of people like Chess, but everyone wants to play it using a different set of rules!  (That's the analogy!)  A difficult problem to solve ... if you want to maintain an institution of respect for the rules, I think.  (That is, how can people respect Chess and it's single set of rules, if everyone plays their own version of Chess?!)  The best answer I have is to establish an Institution of Rules Variants, where there is This Type of Setting, and That Type of Setting, to satisfy the needs of different players (along with their Own Type of Setting.)  Thus, the Arcane Age, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Maztica, Ravenloft, Kalamar, Mystara, Hollow World, Monte Cook's Setting, AL-QADIM, Oriental Adventures ... heck, pick your edition of D&D, too ... OD&D, 1E, 2E (and variants), 3.0, 3.5, 4th edition, 3rd party (Arcana Unearthed comes to mind here) ... I guess all these choices represent a kind of institutionalization of variations in the rules, to satisfy the needs of different players who want different kinds of games.  It's the best answer we've come up with, I think.  And it's getting better all the time, as it were, as more and more settings exist, and more and more editions of the game, and more and more variants of the game (they may not all be instantly available at a bookstore, but there are all there online on the world's Biggest Bookstore of Them All.)  I really don't have a better answer.  Obviously, you cannot treat D&D like Chess, straight out.  It won't work because people want variation.  It's not an easy situation, and I do not pretend to say it is.  Yet ... the reality that a player needs a concrete set of rules, on which to base his or her imagination, remains.  There it is.  And he or she doesn't need other players bashing him or her because he or she wants to dream, wants to imagine.  If we can do nothing else, we should institutionalize the idea that, with dreaming and the imagination, anything goes.  And work the rules around that core principle ... somehow.    I would say two things about this.  1.  The young do not care.  They are, initially, going to plunder the system for all it's worth (if they are anything like we were, they will.)  40th level characters?  Yes.  Min-Maxing to the ultimate?  Yes.  Conquering the world?  Yes.  1 billion gold pieces?  Yes.  Defeating the Gods?  Yes.  Doing what they want simply because they want to and can?  Yes.  Heh.  LOL.  (Cheers to the young!)  2.  I think 1E D&D should have been slightly different.  It was founded on the Conan type principle of The World Is Harsh, Fight or Die, Conquer or Be Conquered, Triumph and Vanquish, and so on and on.  But 1E was also specifically designed so that characters were *not* self-sufficient.  They had to rely on each other for survival.  So, we had the fighter, the wizard, the cleric, the rogue, and each had special skills nobody else had.  The concept behind 3.5E gestalt, removed this, and postulated that a single character could be far more self sufficient, having two classes as one (and if a gestalt character multiclassed, he or she could have all the basic needed skills for survival.)  Unfortunately, the gestalt concept came at the very end of 3.5, in an optional book at that, and never had any time to become established.  Why not have such a system as that, where anyone can attempt to acquire all the skills ala gestalt?  And the only limitation, is how hard the player tries to acquire power?  (D&D is really, heavily, about acquiring power ...)  Heh, so then ANY player could, ultimately, have the ability to use that 'how can I manipulate X rules to my advantage? Classically, this meant finding spell-combos (Timestop + Delayed Blast Fireball or Shapechange: choker + quicken spell = three spells a round + move action'  And each player can try to outdo the others, in being more disastrouly, wickedly, nastily creative in trashing the DM's monsters and scenarios alike!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  In short, everyone gets a chance to get all the Good Stuff, at all levels.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />    Again, each to their own.  I like the classic concept of the single class wizard, but I'd rather see the clever character try to have his or her cake, and eat it too.  For example, a lot of people played elven fighter/wizards.  After years of watching the rules be stretched over that, and having seen things since ...  ... I would say:  Heck, just let EVERYONE be EVERYTHING, make it Gestalt (so a standard 2 class character has all 4 of the basic classes, and a 3 classes character basically has it all) and carry on.  But that's up to each DM and player, as it should be.  Again, it's about Variants.  Conan was a single classed Barbarian.  John Carter was a single classed Fighter.  Merlin was a Druid or a Wizard depending on interpretation.  Thoth-Amon was a Wizard.  (muses)  We need a Rules Etiquette that covers situations where the characters are single classed (and not self sufficient) and multiclassed and self-sufficient, and everything in-between.  A tall order, but there it is.    That was a rule in 1E, which I disagreed with (as did everyone else.)  It sorta assumes that only humans dream.  The other races - elves, dwarves, halflings - don't dream very well, don't want or crave great insight, great skill, great accomplishment ... and thus never get to high level ... or, have lost the ability to get to high level.  I wouldn't go with that.  Heck, just let the demihumans have the goods also.  Humans will stand shine out (an age problem?  Magical Longevity will fix that!  A fighter with no magical longevity?  Use the gestalt rules, or let him or her contact a wizard WITH longevity magic!  Or ... just rule humans live a long time (the average life expectancy on Barsoom was 1,000 years ...)  In short, the so called Racial Advantage Thing was, in my opinion, overblown.  Level limits weren't needed.  Not even with the infamous drow.  Just my opinion.  If we build a new core infrastructure, leave that out.    Yes.  Yes!  YES.  Did I say Yes?  YES!!!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  We are on the same wavelength here!  Rules.  RULES!  Rules that allow you to DO things.  I like it.  Cheers to you, sir.    LOL.  There was Algebra, then Calculus, then Psionics (understandable only by the illithid!), then the 1E Grapple Rules (understandable only by the Krell.)  Give me simplicity.    I roll to hit at -4.  I hit!  That means a successful grapple!  (or something simple like that.)  You are *so* right.  In most conflicts we see in popular fiction and on TV, those involved grapple, tumble, punch, and otherwise barge around, crash around, fall, wrestle, and otherwise do lots of things other than 'formal fencing with weapons'.  Can you imagine an ogre who insists on only 'formally fencing with weapons'?  LOL.  That ogre will, indeed, try to squash you with his club, but he will also stomp on you, fall on you, squeeze on you, kick you, run you down, and ... play a one-sided Rugby game with your poor PC?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Or, at least, that is how I imagine it.  I would think others would too.    LOL.  Again, total agreement.    And, again, I advocate the Gestalt concept, based on your thief example.  If the fighter wants to climb a mountain, let him.  If the wizard wants to try, let her.  Etc., etc., etc..  Why should a character be restricted to just one set of actions?  Let each player and his or her character attempt to get All the Good Stuff!  (I go much further on this thinking that you do, but in the basic principles of the matter we agree totally.)</blockquote>  (considers)  My argument is that ...  Hmmm ... the core rules were incomplete, really.  Some of the original rules I did not agree with, and many others did not agree with.  We were right to change those rules.  Make up new ones.  Get the supplements.  Go to new editions.  Whatever it took, to have fun.  Where we went wrong, was when we started disrespecting the rules so badly, that the very idea of fundamental rules became increasingly meaningless.  What we wanted, was the only thing that mattered.  THAT IN ITSELF wasn't so bad of a thing, really.  BY ITSELF, the disrespect for rules was not the problem.  IT IS WHAT IT LED TO, that became the problem.  What it led to was the concept that the rules used by OTHER players, were somehow 'inferior' to the rules used by US.  Somehow, OUR version of the rules and the game, was 'superior' to the rules and version played by THOSE OTHER players.  Again, at first, this was a minor aside, not a major issue.  It was merely - at the time - a reason for philosophical debate, discussion, the occasional argument, and so on.  It took up some pages of Dragon Magazine, people read and formed opinions, and so on.  But, over the years, these attitudes hardened into intolerance.  Intolerance became institutionalized.  By institutionalized, I mean it became the predominent mindset, the way in which everyone started thinking.  Conversations became arguments, philosophical debate became vitrolic putdowns, people started looking down on each other, people started with the name-calling, feelings got hurt, and a downward spiral began.    I will repeat that, many years ago, this downward spiral led to people ready to kill each other over whether Spell Penetration should be +2 (3.0) or +1 (3.5)  I witnessed the Flame Wars here and elsewhere.  This kind of institutionized anger, now turned to hatred, just vented and vented, and the downward spiral just went on and on.  Heck, an alternate forum even got created, so people could blow off steam, and that alternate forum was the old Nutkinland, and is now Circys Maximus.  There, the differences between Gamers turned into vitrolic blood and guts, and remains that way to this day.  And where did it all begin?  It all began with the seemingly harmless idea that rules had no meaning, because you had to change them to suit people's tastes, because in a game of imagination everything was possible.  I'm saying that yes, the rules need to be changeable, BUT respect for the rules is also needed ... and somehow this must be institutionalized, so that what has happened, never happens again.  Consider Chess players.  They can be cranky at times.  They can be very competitive, and certainly very emotional.  But you *do not see* chess players ready to kill each other over whether a bishop moves diagonally or vertically, whether a rook should move like a bishop, or whether the queen should be nerfed because she is too powerful a piece.  And that is because, the rules in Chess are respected as an institution.  There is a game called Knightmare Chess, a favorite of mine (but which horrifies the Chess players I know.)  In this game, you play cards, and the cards change the rules of Chess, one change of the rules per card!    Thus, you might have a King, or two Kings, or your King might automatically be able to get out of Checkmate, or he might even be able to swap places with another piece ... or even join the other side!! (in which case, you'd *better* have a second King, because your side is sorta beaten when your King defects to the other side ... lol ...)  But even Knightmare Chess, with all it's uproar, frivolity, and chaos, has a basic etiquette, a set of rules.  Even the variants of Knightmare Chess have the etiquette and the rules.   And we who play Knightmare Chess respect the rules, and are not ready to have a Flame War because a card pronounces that my queen (or the other person's) joins the other side.  Now, why can't we do this in D&D?  Since when was all this racket of the last 20 years really necessary?  So in 3.0, Spell Penetration gives a +2.  In 3.5, it gives a +1.  In MY game, it gives a +4!  In 4E, it doesn't exist.  And so?  What of it?  It's fine with me.  It should not be a problem with anyone.  You spoke of the player with the 'how can I manipulate X rules to my advantage? Classically, this meant finding spell-combos (Timestop + Delayed Blast Fireball or Shapechange: choker + quicken spell = three spells a round + move action'  Well, yeah, some players are going to play like that (certainly, ALL Chess players have such a mentality.  And why shouldn't player characters?  They want to survive, and succeed!)  Some players won't.    Each to their own.  Why make a fuss about it?  Create a Core Etiquette in which, if a player wants to play like that, that's ok.    Set it up so the other players can also play like that, so everyone can Get the Goods.  And if the group is not comfortable with that style of play, set up the Etiquette to deal with how it is, they do want to play!  If you have one player who likes THAT way of playing, one player who likes THIS way of playing, and one player that likes THESE ways of playing, and one player who likes THOSE ways of playing, set it up so that everyone gets what they want!  Not an easy thing, I know.  Indeed, quite a tall order.    But hey, it's FAR better than the alternative:  the THAT player disses the THIS player who disses the THESE player who disses the THOSE player who disses the THAT player who ...  Wouldn't you agree?  Edena_of_Neith[/QUOTE]

Verification